Check this out: ( http://www.envirotruth.org/pvc.cfm ) Looks like some enviro's don't agree with the report. But, I've been working with vinyl for 15 years as an urban landscape designer, and the USGBC is a trusted source.

i've heard that there is lots of going back and forth on not just vinyl, but lots of materials "green-ness"
the importance of selecting green building materials in our future buildings has left some manufacturers nervous about the future of their commonly used products. many companies will make some sort of argument for why their product is green, while there can be just as many arguments against it for whatever reason...

i guess i am saying it is a tough call in determining what is considered green and what is not. you'll find a lot of conflicting information, and ultimately just have to go with whatever you and your client find to be the most responsible solution.

sorry, i am not sure if that was very insightful

Doesn't seem "green" at all to me, maybe GLOWING GREEN! The Vinyl Institute lobbies HEAVILY to promote PVC in any way that will help it sell – it’s “cheap”, “low-maintenance”, “indestructible”, oh and “green!” What the hell, why not? Just because it’s durable, doesn't require paint and is cheap doesn't offset its nasty chemical composition (PVC and other materials should be evaluated holistically). From what I've read, while its manufacturing has become less harmful, it still consists of VERY TOXIC elements (as for "green" think embodiment of energy - just add toxicity) and even though within the final product these elements may be inert and thus innocuous (debatable I'm sure), they are used and inevitably are released in its production/destruction. Plus, to my knowledge there are no effective recycling processes/programs for PVC.

Here are some other folks who don't think so...

http://www.healthybuilding.net/pvc/

http://www.bluevinyl.org

this is a no-brainer. pvc is frickin nasty. not green. end of story. besides, it's ugly as sin (at least the standard, faux wood grain nonsense)... unless you're doing some crazy, never-before-seen avant-garde vinyl application that will blow our minds, in which case you still shouldn't use it since it's toxic and... nasty.

I second Fudu. Find a copy of "Blue Vinyl Siding," then you tell me.

It depends on how committed you are to the cause of environmentally friendly design, methinks. If you are just paying lipservice, sure. PVC is much cleaner, in the end, then big heavy old school pipes. Those are tough to manufacture, are often manufactured nearby, and require alot of onsite labor. PVC is quick, comes in on a truck, and is generally manufactured far far away from wherever you might be right now.

On the other hand, if you're for real about wanting to "do the right thing," (which is actually far more convoluted and damned near impossible than anyone cares to admit, short of Bill MacDonough) look into the more long-reaching implications of spec-ing PVC. Who had to die a horrible death to a rare brain cancer to manufacture it? How much embodied energy went into extracting the chemicals from the leftovers of petrochemicals? How much energy went into the extracyting the petrochemicals themselves? And perhaps most importantly, what the hell happens 30 years from now when whatever monolithic piece of green architecture you are creating is obsolete and replaced by the newest breed of green-washed crap? Put the PVC in a landfill for the next 3 millenia? Repurpose (downcycle?) it as a piece of a plastic-wood hybrid for decking? Either way, you're just putting off the inevitable dumping. What happens then? Does some archeologist in the year 6000AD stumble across the mess you left her?

The USGBC (and the whole LEED process) is driven by money. It's cause is good only because it's the best option out there. It's still driven by the green stuff, and I don't mean plants. That they have endorsed PVC as a "green material" is simply one more example of how incredibly, awefully, woefully green-washed our profession has become. Walking through the AIA expo in Chicago last summer was enough proof of that for me. Every product there, it seems, was made of environmentally friendly plastics, delivered on environmentally friendly diesel dumptrucks, and installed with only the finest of chemical adhesives, proven to offgas only half as much as the standard adhesive.

What an age we live in.

.mm

I am "siding" with the blue vinyl folks.

Vinyl causes cancer in its production and at its' 'end of life'. hardly green.

Shame on you LSU architecture students for designing Habitat homes using vinyl... Very ironic especially as your state is known for 'cancer alley'.

Very sad that 'cancer alley' is mainly in African American neighborhoods. I can make references to historic treatment of minority communities by your state but anyway, well done LSU for keeping up the good tradition.

1. - http://www.seeingblack.com/x040901/toxic_gumbo.shtml
2. - http://archive.blackvoices.com/articles/daily/index_20010621.asp

FYI. I you feel strongly about this issue, you should write to the LSU students as their projects are 'due' next week.

i second the anti-vinyl trend. if you want to use a 'green' plastic material, polypropylene is very good. very attractive too, many color options etc...

a blurb on polypro:

Before polypropylene was invented, the gaseous waste from oil such as propylene and ethylene were simply burned, because they were useless.
Today, these gases are used to produce polypropylene, thus limiting atmospheric pollution.

Polypropylene, unlike PVC, does not give off chlorine when burnt. It gives off only water vapour and carbon dioxide, which is converted by photosynthesis (chlorophyll). It is a chemically inert product.

To incinerate some materials, extra fuel needs to be added. Polypropylene however, is destroyed simply by burning, because its calorific capacity is similar to that of oil. Thus incinerators economise on fuel and operate more efficiently.

Polypropylene products last much longer than those made from most similar materials. It is easy to wipe clean, hard wearing and will withstand extreme temperatures and ageing.

Being more durable than alternative materials, products made from polypropylene do not need to be replaced as often.

I wonder though how the toxicity of vinyl manufacturing is balanced by the elimination of the need to repaint every 5 to 8 years, as with wood siding. Even "low VOC" paints still contain about 40% VOCs (as opposed to 80%) in "regular" paint.
As far as Habitat homes designed with vinyl: often homes done by Habitat are sided with wood and then the end user, faced with the prospect of having to repaint for the first time, replaces the wood with vinyl 7 years later. Ultimately this just results in waste of the original siding.

Are you telling me that someone living in a Habitat home would personally pay to rip down all the wood siding in their home and then pay again to have vinyl siding installed rather than repaint... hmm. I'd like to see some proof and that it's not a 'few' people.

Also why is it the Vinyl Institute gives $5Million in siding in Louisiana alone? PR or because bacause they care...

vinyl bad. no brainer.

fudu, MMatt, o+ and cameron. . . very well informed. thanks.

i saw that 'blue vinyl' HBO special, and i will never ever use that crap on any project, ever.

i have always been against it as a siding material, and the documentary just reinforced all of my issues with it.

if someone wants a lower maintenance siding, than cementitious (ie. james hardie) is the way to go. you have to paint it, but not nearly as often.

I worked on a Yale Building Project house on which we used wood siding. It was replaced about a year ago with vinyl by the owner.

that's too bad eeayeeayo. unfortunately, consumers are rarely well informed about the products they buy. and we as "professionals" are no better - as mentioned above, architects, designers, and schools (like LSU) participate in product company lobbying & marketing "campaigns" disguised as charity. it's disappointing - i'd think that we are smarter than that. unfortunately it's not just us - look at what is happening to healthcare - its becoming overrun by pharmaceutical company-sponsored pill-pushers who call themselves doctors. we must do better than this.